Social Security is not a promise of security. It is real security and has been real security for 70 years.

I appreciate the concession that there was a "deparate problem".

As for Social Security being a temporary solution, it hasn't missed a beat for 70 years and is projected to remain 100% solvent for about another 50, with or without adjustments. With some good faith tweaking it can remain permanently solvent. So, if we can survive until 2008, maybe we can elect some people who will be willing to act in good faith.

Who is promoting communism? You keep returning to that point. Do you really think SS is a communist program?

True.

So does starvation.

Good sentiment, but wouldn't the elimination of Social Security return us to the "desparate problem" you mentioned earlier?

.......so the first thing I did on Nov 2 was run out and vote them all back into office

So on one hand we have the "I have mine forget about anyone else" attitude versus the "lets help the less fortunate and those who are incapable of managing their own life" attitude.

__________________
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!

My guess is it is being invested for congress to inure themself a pay raise? I love our country but how long can some of the corruption go on before the system gets so bad it breaks?

hey dculkin and jim, youv'e made some good points and i have some thoughts too. unfortunately, i've some other life Christmas eve type stuff i have to do or it's curtains for me. catch ya later.

these are examples of providing for the general welfare. i have no quarrel there. surprisingly, i'm sure, i have no quarrel with a social security program. unless the implementation of such becomes socialist in nature (refer communist manifesto--from rich...blah blah blah.) the SSI as initially structured was solvent and would have remained so had the fund not been raided. could we not have the funds diverted from our checks and put in a fund not accessible by govt.?


how does any money that goes into a general fund and readily accessed get spent?

some would say that tax cuts generate more revenue by growing the economy, sort of like getting a raise generates more revenue to pay bills and buy toys. your opinion on where the money went is shared by many. a great many also share the opinion that cutting taxes on those who pay them combined with fiscal belt cinching would solve a great portion of your concerns.
and so we have your perspective. another perspective is that they do have your best interests at heart. my perspective is they have expediency at heart.
first of all, i can't tell you how good it feels to read this from some one as articulate as you seem to be. and i appreciate your recognization that i am ever vigilant about the flow of socialist leanings. socialism as a way of life is appealing...it just doesn't promote the best in people and life. that said, as to yyour blessing to "go after communism" and "stomp it out", i shall do what i can; but, i was kind of hoping you'd give me a hand.

any security provided by someone else or some other entity, is only a promise. true security is what the individual provides.

the desparate problem to which i was referring was the great depression; now over since wwII.

social security was intended to be a supplemental temporary solution. it has sinced morphed into some moderate full blown retirement benefit plan. which is fine by me.

where i have my quarrel in in that since the SSI fund was raided, it has changed from a savings with interest program to a rob from one biblical charachter to pay another. that, my friend, as it applys to SSI is a principle of communism. I am fully behind the SSI program and it's benefits as long as the implementation remains capitolistic in priciple.


i'm sure people went hungry before the SSI program. i'm comforted that fewer are now. i'd like to be even more efficient there. i think the best way to accomplish that is to do it through capitolistic priciples.

however, i'm certain that the total number of people who are now and have ever starved in this nation, wouldn't even scratch the surface in comparison to the numbers of people murdered and oppresed and yes , starved by communism.

i am only for eliminating the socialist nature of SSI

i have seen first hand the good that SSI has done. we can make it better while preserving the principles upon which this nation was founded. i know i need not say it, but, this is the greatest nation in the world for opportunity. do we have problems? yeah, but when i look at the other nations probs., and having lived in a third world nation for a large portion of my life, i much prefer our warts to thiers. thanks for your time.

Never meant to suggest you should do this all alone. We work on those items we find most offensive. If we find the same practices offensive, I expect we will find ourselves cooperating. Jim

__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles

Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)

so where does that leave us with respect to the nature of SSI? can we agree that it would be better for the direction of the nation to stay away from priciples of communism? can we agree that from each/to each is a principle of communism? can we agree that from each/to each is the function of SSI as currently constituted?

"Communism"? Give me a break. It's an insurance program. It's not "each according to his need - the checks are scaled out based on income. For once, can we have a serious debate without resorting to boogie men? You seem to be saying SSI will lead to "communist starvation". Can we just cut the crap? The SSI system has worked well for generations. It is perfectly solvent. It wasn't created out of thin air - someone didn't wake up and say, "Man, I think I create a retirement system for the elderly!" - it came about because a lot of bad things happened in the days before we had it -real things, to real people. The Republicans need to lay off the scare tactics, ala Iraqi WMDs.

you don't need to define to me what SSI does.

do you agree that from each according to his means and to each according to hia needs is a communist tenet?

i gotta go, i'm starting to feel like a post slut.

can we agree that the implementation od SSI is such that, even thought the percentage is constant, the more a person makes, the more actual cash they pay?

can we agree that the pay out is means/needs tested?

can we agree that the money my dad started paying in 1930 something is no longer there?

can we agree that the money he gets now is dependant on current contributions?

therefore, from each.....to each. this is a communist principle.

Yeah, sure. To the collective farm with him. All power to the soviets.

If Putnam Investments or Dreyfus or some other investment company decided to offer an identical scam as social security, their leaders would all go to jail for the worst financial fraud ever known. It would make Enron and MCI look like peanuts.

Where is "my" money? Where is "my" account? Nowhere. When I retire, it depends on ripping off the next generation.

Make the WHOLE thing optional or abolish it.

__________________

currently enjoying,
'96 E300 black opal 149K
'97 E300 smoke silver 137K
also owned by family members,
'83 240D manual
'97 E300 white
'02 Jetta TDI

Yet another "I've got mine and F#$K the rest" justification. Man these guys are mentally ill and easily persuaded. No wonder W. is president.

__________________
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!

well, i have said nothing about the soviets. communist principles can be found all over the globe....even in democracies(sp) such as our own democratic republic.

your post seems to suggest that i may be over the top in my assessment of the communist priciples found in our govt. if that is the case, i'd like to address it.

assuming we agree that communism as practiced by mankind is bad for humanity, we can also agree that even a little communism is also bad in the sense that a little bit of communism (read: socialism) eventually leads to evolution through revolution to full blown communism. this evolution can happen in as little as one generation, albeit the population would have to be fairly ignorant to the dangers of that system.

Mao's communist revolution took less than a full generation. the dissemintation of propaganda was accomplished through the young and emotional at schools etc. they were recruited to tell on thier parents an aquaintences if they believed said parents etc. were anti revolution. need i describe the result of being anti revolution with regard to communism? suffice it to say that mao's revolution led to the murder of millions of people-men, women and children.

do i believe it is likely to happen to the US? no, not unless we expirience an extensive evolution of thought through socialist principles (read: diet communism).

and so i find it analogous to a batch of brownies. brownies are great; with or with out nuts. how many of us would still eat the brownies with same gusto, if we new there were fecal matter in them? how little fecal matter would have to be in it to spoil the batch?

now apply the example to govt./society and communism or even diet communism, and you may see my point.

do we agree that fecal matter, how ever diluted, is a disgusting thing to eat?